sx_delete

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature (delete) and the default read-only guard rejection, which is a crucial behavior. It does not explain consequences such as irreversibility, required authorizations, or how to properly override the guard, so transparency is partial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, dense sentence with the primary purpose front-loaded ('删除单据') followed by the essential guard caveat. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description provides the critical guard behavior, but it omits parameter meanings and any guidance on prerequisites or side effects. It is minimally adequate but not complete enough for an agent to use it confidently without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions form_id or data_id, so it does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation. The schema only provides titles, which are likely insufficient for an agent to understand how the identifiers relate to the deletion.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('删除' / delete) and resource ('单据' / document), and identifies itself as the '官方 delete' (official delete), which implies it is the authoritative delete among siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase '默认被只读守卫拒绝' (rejected by the read-only guard by default) gives an important operational caveat about when the call will fail, which is a form of usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like sx_un_submit or sx_save_or_update, leaving usage conditions only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.